Nope, sorry. Even NASA couldn't build another Saturn V rocket today. They have admitted this. It is because plans and technical details aren't nearly enough. You need the engineers that worked on it (which is a situation that private companies would rarely if ever allow themselves to get into).
In fact, NASA is so bad at building rockets, we don't even have a manned space program any more, despite the fact that they get more funding EACH YEAR than all the famous private programs put together have in their entire history of operation (SpaceX has only spent a billion dollars as of 2012, and has turned revenues far higher than that while doing it)! If building rockets is so easy due to past advances, why doesn't NASA have a huge fleet of interplanetary craft? Could it be that *GASP* governments aren't as good as private enterprise at actually getting things done?
No, because you only made one, where they made millions (billions?) of them. Try making and selling that many in the time that it took Cisco to get to where it is today, and I suspect you would fail miserably, because your product probably wouldn't be nearly as good.
And besides, electronics is a wholly different domain from rocketry. There is no Moore's law for rocketry. There is no database of free software or even engine designs. Everyone has to jam the same amount of motive power into their rocket and keep it from blowing up when it isn't supposed to. Private companies managed this for faster and cheaper (not just inflation adjusted but NOMINALLY as well).
Access to credit scores costs money. Third parties checking your credit will subtly lower your rating as well.
Basically, having an ap that can check your credit, especially without your explicit instruction, is a terrible idea. But your point stands--though that is getting closer to the realm of strong AI.
75% of the time I say "uh-huh", human listeners repeat what they just said. This started happening a few years ago, and it's a LOT of people, including strangers, who do it. Hound didn't even register it as a word, even at high volume.
Also, Hound didn't understand anything except for "affirmative" in GP's list. "Yup" was understood as "see you", to which it replied "be good".
Demo is great, but the reality isn't. Or maybe I just have some kind of really bad accent. Seems less accurate than Google Now. Also has an annoying habit of cutting off input while you are still talking, forcing you to talk really fast.
The private space program was completely illegal 20 years ago, and has only more recently been freed from anti-competition regulation (ie
ie..gov didn't want competition for NASA).
Private spaceflight is far, far more advanced than public spaceflight was at the same age.
Understand that the central bank is the central focus of redistribution of wealth in our society, and has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE in a capitalist society, as it is LITERALLY a plank of the Communist Manifesto. Problem for commies is, it redistributes money from capital (ie the source of wages) to asset prices (ie things rich people own).
Getting rid of Richard isn't going to make Paula's life any easier. It will make it harder. Richard is her employer.
People need to cut the class warfare shit and focus on improving their own lives. What is so horrible about that, other than the fact that there is some work involved?
But we weren't talking about things being twice as fast, we were talking about twice as many neurons (remember, we were talking about squishing BRAINS together, not speeding up processors), which, all other things (such as synapse numbers) being equal, scales logarithmically or exponentially, not linearly, as you seemed to imply. This means that it keeps up with problems that scale the same way just fine.
" In fact right now we are not making computers faster at all. We are just making more of them in the same space."
In the business, we call that "a distinction without a difference". And besides, clock speeds aren't the problem here. The problem is finding a way to reproduce neuronal connectivity and function.
"And again 2 computers does not mean twice as fast, twice as much input processing or anything."
Tell that to the people assembling and selling botnets for $millions. Or BOINC for that matter.
Except in this case, the participation trophy is worth much, much more than the old first place trophies. Cutting off the top income slots will send us slamming back into one or another of the old systems were EVERYONE was poor, including kings.
There's also the fact that people probably don't want to have kids all the time. Probably one set, or even a single child, will be enough for most. Hell, in the West, this is already the case.
"No, as without rich people, there is no such thing as poor, as it's a relative term."
So, would you rather be a European king circa 700AD, or a "poor" person in America today?
Poverty is absolutely NOT relative anywhere save for your mind. Maybe if you spent less time complaining about the things other people have, and more time improving your lot in life, you wouldn't be so poor?
Sort of. There is a lot of overlap, such that a deep intellect of, say, IQ 2000 could provide insights that would allow each member of humanity to make better decisions, such that humanity with a collective IQ of 700,000,000,000 + ASI IQ of 2000 is more economically effective than humanity with 14 billion people and 100 IQ average. But for ASI to make better decisions than everyone else put together, you need it to have linear computing power greater than all of humanity combined (where higher IQ scores may require exponential advances in computing power).
"Try solving the Travelling salespeople problem twice as big with merely twice as fast hardware, it will slow to a grinch."
Yes, but solving it with twice as much of something that scales the same way (logarithmically), and its fine. You know, like doubling the number of "neurons" in a neural net.
"We know the substrate of brain power, gray cells"
No, we really, really don't. That's like saying we know computers because we know silicon. But none-the-less, more "silicon" processors==more computing power, and more neurons==logarithmically or exponentially more computing power. Of course, that is when they are concerned with thinking, rather than coordinating the movement and processing sensory input from 450 cubic meters of flesh--a herculean task by animal measures.
Uhh, precedent. Double the resources, double the ability. This is well known.
It's not like AI is going to run on some unknown substrate.
And larger animals have larger brains because they have more body to control. Computers, with NO body to control, can devote 100% of their processing power to being intelligent. They don't even have to take pee breaks.
Your problem is that you don't think hard enough. If no-one did, then the universe would meet a very strange end, tiled with something weird like paperclips.
Read the link, then get back to me. And maybe stop talking about things and people you know nothing about.
You can't just squish two brains together and get twice the computing power. Also, our conscious selves (the part with agency) doesn't have command level access, so we can't choose how we develop.
You sound like an alien dismissing the capabilities of life on Earth because you went there a few billion years ago and there was just a bunch of bacteria floating around.
Better have that finger on the off switch, because if it gets access to the internet, it might just copy itself onto a few hundred million other devices. Or did you also fail to program a self-propogating virus in FORTRAN in 1978?
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, sorry. Even NASA couldn't build another Saturn V rocket today. They have admitted this. It is because plans and technical details aren't nearly enough. You need the engineers that worked on it (which is a situation that private companies would rarely if ever allow themselves to get into).
In fact, NASA is so bad at building rockets, we don't even have a manned space program any more, despite the fact that they get more funding EACH YEAR than all the famous private programs put together have in their entire history of operation (SpaceX has only spent a billion dollars as of 2012, and has turned revenues far higher than that while doing it)! If building rockets is so easy due to past advances, why doesn't NASA have a huge fleet of interplanetary craft? Could it be that *GASP* governments aren't as good as private enterprise at actually getting things done?
No, because you only made one, where they made millions (billions?) of them. Try making and selling that many in the time that it took Cisco to get to where it is today, and I suspect you would fail miserably, because your product probably wouldn't be nearly as good.
And besides, electronics is a wholly different domain from rocketry. There is no Moore's law for rocketry. There is no database of free software or even engine designs. Everyone has to jam the same amount of motive power into their rocket and keep it from blowing up when it isn't supposed to. Private companies managed this for faster and cheaper (not just inflation adjusted but NOMINALLY as well).
Why don't you ask it?
Access to credit scores costs money. Third parties checking your credit will subtly lower your rating as well.
Basically, having an ap that can check your credit, especially without your explicit instruction, is a terrible idea. But your point stands--though that is getting closer to the realm of strong AI.
75% of the time I say "uh-huh", human listeners repeat what they just said. This started happening a few years ago, and it's a LOT of people, including strangers, who do it. Hound didn't even register it as a word, even at high volume.
Also, Hound didn't understand anything except for "affirmative" in GP's list. "Yup" was understood as "see you", to which it replied "be good".
We have a long way to go, it seems.
Demo is great, but the reality isn't. Or maybe I just have some kind of really bad accent. Seems less accurate than Google Now. Also has an annoying habit of cutting off input while you are still talking, forcing you to talk really fast.
The original Spider Man didn't shoot silk but some artificial polymer that he created. Guess Stan Lee was an early adopter of calculators.
The private space program was completely illegal 20 years ago, and has only more recently been freed from anti-competition regulation (ie ie. .gov didn't want competition for NASA).
Private spaceflight is far, far more advanced than public spaceflight was at the same age.
Yes, but that was their own money, not opm collected at gunpoint.
So, like thorium, only expensive and hard to work with?
End the Fed.
Understand that the central bank is the central focus of redistribution of wealth in our society, and has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE in a capitalist society, as it is LITERALLY a plank of the Communist Manifesto. Problem for commies is, it redistributes money from capital (ie the source of wages) to asset prices (ie things rich people own).
Getting rid of Richard isn't going to make Paula's life any easier. It will make it harder. Richard is her employer.
People need to cut the class warfare shit and focus on improving their own lives. What is so horrible about that, other than the fact that there is some work involved?
But we weren't talking about things being twice as fast, we were talking about twice as many neurons (remember, we were talking about squishing BRAINS together, not speeding up processors), which, all other things (such as synapse numbers) being equal, scales logarithmically or exponentially, not linearly, as you seemed to imply. This means that it keeps up with problems that scale the same way just fine.
" In fact right now we are not making computers faster at all. We are just making more of them in the same space."
In the business, we call that "a distinction without a difference". And besides, clock speeds aren't the problem here. The problem is finding a way to reproduce neuronal connectivity and function.
"And again 2 computers does not mean twice as fast, twice as much input processing or anything."
Tell that to the people assembling and selling botnets for $millions. Or BOINC for that matter.
Stop redefining words to make your arguments, please.
Except in this case, the participation trophy is worth much, much more than the old first place trophies. Cutting off the top income slots will send us slamming back into one or another of the old systems were EVERYONE was poor, including kings.
There's also the fact that people probably don't want to have kids all the time. Probably one set, or even a single child, will be enough for most. Hell, in the West, this is already the case.
"No, as without rich people, there is no such thing as poor, as it's a relative term."
So, would you rather be a European king circa 700AD, or a "poor" person in America today?
Poverty is absolutely NOT relative anywhere save for your mind. Maybe if you spent less time complaining about the things other people have, and more time improving your lot in life, you wouldn't be so poor?
Sort of. There is a lot of overlap, such that a deep intellect of, say, IQ 2000 could provide insights that would allow each member of humanity to make better decisions, such that humanity with a collective IQ of 700,000,000,000 + ASI IQ of 2000 is more economically effective than humanity with 14 billion people and 100 IQ average. But for ASI to make better decisions than everyone else put together, you need it to have linear computing power greater than all of humanity combined (where higher IQ scores may require exponential advances in computing power).
"Try solving the Travelling salespeople problem twice as big with merely twice as fast hardware, it will slow to a grinch."
Yes, but solving it with twice as much of something that scales the same way (logarithmically), and its fine. You know, like doubling the number of "neurons" in a neural net. "We know the substrate of brain power, gray cells"
No, we really, really don't. That's like saying we know computers because we know silicon. But none-the-less, more "silicon" processors==more computing power, and more neurons==logarithmically or exponentially more computing power. Of course, that is when they are concerned with thinking, rather than coordinating the movement and processing sensory input from 450 cubic meters of flesh--a herculean task by animal measures.
A computer that is twice as fast is twice as fast. What part of this do you not understand?
Uhh, precedent. Double the resources, double the ability. This is well known.
It's not like AI is going to run on some unknown substrate.
And larger animals have larger brains because they have more body to control. Computers, with NO body to control, can devote 100% of their processing power to being intelligent. They don't even have to take pee breaks.
"so there it goes the "alien goal""
Your problem is that you don't think hard enough. If no-one did, then the universe would meet a very strange end, tiled with something weird like paperclips.
Read the link, then get back to me. And maybe stop talking about things and people you know nothing about.
Warning: Idiot human detected. Take his stuff and repurpose his atoms for something useful!
You can't just squish two brains together and get twice the computing power. Also, our conscious selves (the part with agency) doesn't have command level access, so we can't choose how we develop.
You sound like an alien dismissing the capabilities of life on Earth because you went there a few billion years ago and there was just a bunch of bacteria floating around.
Better have that finger on the off switch, because if it gets access to the internet, it might just copy itself onto a few hundred million other devices. Or did you also fail to program a self-propogating virus in FORTRAN in 1978?